Comment on s7-10-04

Saundersj

Description

THE INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP ONE PICKWICK PLAZA GREENWICH, CT 06830 [phone] Thomas Petrfy Cirn David M. Battan Vice President January 24, 2005 Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary Securities and Exchange Commission 450 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20549 Re: Proposed Regulation NMS, File No. S-7-10-04 Dear Mr. Katz: 1 The Interactive Brokers Group , on behalf of its affiliates Timber Hill LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC, respectfully submits these comments on the Commission’s amended proposed Regulation NMS. We strongly support adoption of proposed Reg NMS, which is a common sense and long-overdue update of the national market system rules in light of the major technological changes that have taken place in the equity markets in the last three decades. We focus our comments here on the Commission’s proposed Order Protection (“trade-through”) Rule. We support adoption of the Market BBO Alternative proposed by the Commission, under which investors will be guaranteed to receive the best electronically executable price displayed in the national market system. However, we do not believe that the Voluntary Depth Alternative, under which a market center executing an order would have to protect or satisfy all displayed quotes in every other market center’s book, is necessary, and we believe that the complexity of implementing and enforcing the Voluntary Depth alternative at the exchange level would ...

Informations

• Publié par: Udde
• Nombre de lectures: 16
• Langue: English

Extrait

THE INTERACTIVE BROKERS GROUP

ONE PICKWICK PLAZA

GREENWICH, CT

06830

[phone]

T

h

o

m

a

s

P

e

t

e

r

f

f

y

C

h

a

i

r

m

a

n

David M. Battan

Vice President

January 24, 2005

Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20549

Re:

Proposed Regulation NMS, File No. S-7-10-04

Dear Mr. Katz:

The Interactive Brokers Group

1

, on behalf of its affiliates Timber Hill LLC and

Interactive Brokers LLC, respectfully submits these comments on the Commission’s amended

proposed Regulation NMS.

We strongly support adoption of proposed Reg NMS, which is a

common sense and long-overdue update of the national market system rules in light of the major

technological changes that have taken place in the equity markets in the last three decades.

We focus our comments here on the Commission’s proposed Order Protection (“trade-

through”) Rule.

We support adoption of the Market BBO Alternative proposed by the

Commission, under which investors will be guaranteed to receive the best electronically

executable price displayed in the national market system.

However, we do not believe that the

Voluntary Depth Alternative, under which a market center executing an order would have to

protect or satisfy all displayed quotes in every other market center’s book, is necessary, and we

believe that the complexity of implementing and enforcing the Voluntary Depth alternative at the

exchange level would outweigh its benefits.

Rather, the Commission should emphasize each

1

Interactive Brokers Group is among the twenty largest securities firms in the U.S.

Our subsidiary

Interactive Brokers LLC provides smart routing and direct access online brokerage services to thousands of

institutions and sophisticated individual customers.

Our market making affiliate, Timber Hill LLC, is one of the

most active market making firms in options and other equity derivatives and is among the largest users of the U.S.

stock exchanges.

IB Group companies trade on Nasdaq, all the major ECNs and on the New York Stock Exchange,

where IB LLC is a member and is among the top 15 program trading fi

rms.

Interactive Brokers Group Comment

Letter on Proposed Regulation NMS

Page 2

broker’s duty to use readily available order-by-order routing systems to access displayed

liquidity at multiple price levels across many markets for each order they handle.

Enhanced use

of smart routing technology, combined with the backstop of the top-of-book best price protection

that market centers will enforce under Reg NMS, is a workable compromise that will provide an

appropriate level of customer protection without imposing an excessive regulatory or linkage

burden on exchanges.

The Commission and its staff have developed the Reg NMS proposal slowly and

deliberately after many, many months of informal discussions with the industry, public meetings,

roundtables, formal requests for comment and other consultation.

It is now time for the

Commission to Act and to approve Reg NMS.

We discuss these matters in more detail below.

*

*

*

Reg NMS is meant to address several fundamental issues facing market participants when

trying to execute stock trades across the many exchanges and other trading venues that now exist

in the national market system.

Chief among these is that, although market centers are supposed

to fill orders at whatever price is displayed to the public at the time, manual, floor-based

exchanges often fail to honor their advertised prices.

On the other hand, orders sent to ECNs and

exchange automatic execution systems are immediately executed at the displayed quote.

Notwithstanding this profound difference between manual and automatically accessible quotes,

outdated Intermarket Trading System rules require brokers and electronic market centers to send

orders to slow, floor-based markets if those markets are posting the best price -- even though the

certainty of getting a fill is much lower than on an electronic system (indeed, the chance of

getting a fill on a traditional exchange goes down when the market is moving in favor of the

customer’s order, exactly when the customer most needs a quick fill).

Under the BBO Alternative of the Reg NMS Order Protection Rule, market centers will

have to indicate, in each of their price quotes, whether an order sent to trade against that quote

will be executed immediately, or whether manual handling will be required.

If a particular

market’s best quote is the best price available across the nation’s markets, and is immediately,

electronically executable, brokers should send their customers’ orders to that quote, and other

markets cannot trade at prices that would be worse for a customer than that national best price.

On the other hand, if a market’s price is not truly firm (if it is a “manual quote” that involves

human discretion in the execution process), brokers will be allowed to bypass that market and

execute a customer’s order on an electronic market at a “worse” – but true -- price.

By requiring markets to indicate whether their best price truly is firm (electronically

executable), and by requiring brokers and exchanges to honor the best national electronically

executable quote, the BBO Order Protection Rule of Reg NMS will accomplish three goals.

First, customers will be assured of getting the best national price for their stock orders, and with

the highly advanced smart order routing technology available today, there is simply no excuse

for anything less.

Second, professional market makers and other liquidity providers who

post

their quotes on electronic markets (i.e., who advertise their willingness to trade at a particular

Interactive Brokers Group Comment

Letter on Proposed Regulation NMS

Page 3

price with the public), will be assured that other markets cannot ignore those quotes and execute

orders at inferior prices.

Knowing that they will capture customer stock trading business if they

are quoting the best national price encourages market makers to post firm, competitive quotes,

which are the lifeblood of transparent and liquid capital markets.

Finally, Reg NMS effectively

supercedes the outmoded ITS trade-through rule, which in certain cases requires that customer

orders in exchange-listed stocks be sent to slow, manual markets, even though such markets may

show the best price but frequently execute at a worse price (this rule has acted as a subtle

disincentive for traditional exchanges to automate their operations).

While we support the BBO Alternative of the Order Protection rule, we do not believe that

it would be wise to require exchanges to protect all displayed bids and offers down the books of

other exchanges (the “Voluntary Depth Alternative”).

Rather, we think it should be left to

broker-dealers, pursuant to their duty of best execution, to use readily available order by order

routing systems to access deep book liquidity offered across multiple market centers for each

order the broker-dealer handles.

Requiring market centers to honor tens, hundreds or thousands of constantly changing

quotes in the deep books of all of their competitors would make it much more difficult for them

to comply with the Order Protection rule, and potentially would reduce existing market centers to

mere entry portals into a monolithic linkage system that they would have to build and administer.

The continued viability of multiple, competing marketplaces would be in question in this system

and it is not clear that these marketplaces would have the incentive or resources to continue to

develop new systems, products, technologies or services.

Likewise, a single, exchange

administered linkage system would create a single point of failure in the national market system

and would be susceptible to delays and outages.

Finally, like the current ITS system, the rules,

procedures and technology platform of such a linkage would be inflexible and resistant to

change.

The Commission instead should state clearly that broker dealers have an obligation,

pursuant to their duty of best execution, to use available technology to access the best posted

prices – including displayed prices down available market centers’ books – for

each order

they

handle.

If no single market was posting sufficient size at the NBBO to execute a customer’s

order, the broker-dealer would divide the order across markets in order to optimize aggregate

execution price and speed.

On the other hand, a broker that simply routes every order to a single

market center for execution on that market center’s book, without regard to readily accessible

automated quotes in the deep books of other market centers, would not be considered to be

acting reasonably and in the best interest of the customer.

Placing the burden on the broker to execute large or complex orders across multiple

markets is much more consistent with the traditional understanding of the broker’s role and

agency obligations than

would placing such burden on the exchanges.

Moreover, order-by-

order smart routing technology that can examine the deep books of multiple market centers and

route customer orders or pieces of orders to those market centers is readily available.

Finally,

emphasizing the broker’s duty to route each order individually based on the displayed quotes in

Interactive Brokers Group Comment

Letter on Proposed Regulation NMS

Page 4

market centers’ limit order books would not require the wholesale creation of a new linkage

system, would not undermine or threaten existing exchanges or ECNs or deprive them of any

incentive for continued competition, and would create redundant, parallel routing capacity by

virtue of the many different systems that would be offered by competing brokers and vendors.

It is not that automatically executable orders in the deep books of market centers should not

be protected from being traded through – they

should

be protected, but that protection should

result from an enhanced emphasis and understanding that broker-dealers have an obligation

when representing their customers’ orders to access these deep-book quotes.

The obligation

should be on the broker and not on other exchanges.

In sum, relying primarily on broker-dealer smart routing systems to access the best-priced

quotes across and down the books of multiple market centers, combined with the “back-up”

protection provided by the Reg NMS BBO trade-through rule (under which the market center

will also assure that the customer will not be executed at a price worse than the NBBO for the

applicable number of shares) seems to be a reasonable compromise that offers appropriate

protection to customers and to liquidity providers while avoiding the problems inherent in a

CLOB-like system.

*

*

*

While the Commission’s update of the national market system rules should cause the

salutary effects discussed above, Reg NMS does not dictate winners and losers or mandate a

particular structure for the national trading system.

For example, Reg NMS does not require

markets to become electronic.

To the extent that floor markets with human intermediated

auctions add value in the order execution process, especially for block-sized or complex orders,

those markets will continue to flourish.

In short -- market forces will determine how orders for

various types of market users, from small investors to large hedge funds, will be handled and

executed.

The problems with the current Intermarket Trading System and the principles behind

proposed Reg NMS have been discussed and debated for years now.

We recommend that the

Commission take action and approve Reg NMS.

Interactive Brokers Group Comment

Letter on Proposed Regulation NMS

Page 5

We thank the Commission and its staff for their time and consideration of our comments.

Please contact either of the undersigned if you require any additional information or would like

to discuss these matters further.

s/ Thomas Peterffy

Thomas Peterffy

C

h

a

i

r

m

a

n

s/ David M. Battan

David M. Battan

Vice President

cc: Hon. William H. Donaldson

Hon. Paul S. Atkins

Hon. Roel C. Campos

Hon. Cynthia A. Glassman

Hon. Harvey J. Goldschmid

Annette L. Nazareth, Esq.

Robert L.D. Colby, Esq.